coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Yefimovich Kot was born in 1937 and lives in Tambov. In 1987 he took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. On 3 November 2000 he was diagnosed with after-effects of radioactive emissions and granted monthly compensation for the damage to his health.
6.  On 30 November 2000 the applicant sued the Military Service Commission of the Tambov Region (Военный комиссариат Тамбовской области, hereinafter the “Commission”) for an increase of the compensation to take account of the inflation.
7.  On 21 February 2001 and 5 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov granted his claim and ordered the Commission to increase the future monthly payments to 12,051.48 Russian roubles (“RUR”) and also to pay him RUR 31,579.74 in respect of the previous period.
8.  On 4 June 2001 the Tambov Regional Court quashed those judgments on appeal, finding that the first-instance court had not taken account of the changes introduced into the Chernobyl Victims Act by the Federal Law № 5 of 12 February 2001. The claim was remitted for a fresh examination.
9.  The Oktyabrskiy District Court pronounced a new judgment on 13 August 2001. It assessed future monthly payments at RUR 10,000 and the lump sum in respect of the previous period at RUR 60,365.
10.  On 10 September 2001 the Tambov Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal on the ground that the first-instance court had incorrectly applied the substantive law and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
11.  By judgment of 27 November 2002, the Oktyabrskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 18,077.21 in monthly payments as from 1 December 2002 and RUR 281,437.32 in respect of the previous period.
12.  On 20 January 2003 the Tambov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, and the judgment became enforceable.
13.  On 23 January 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review. It claimed that the first-instance and appeal courts had erroneously applied civil-law provisions relating to calculation of the minimal wages for the purposes of adjusting the applicant's compensation in line with inflation.
14.  On 28 January 2003 the President of the Tambov Regional Court stayed the execution of the judgment of 27 November 2002.
15.  On 26 June 2003 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It determined that the lower courts had erred in applying the substantive law by not having taken into account the amendments introduced into the Chernobyl Victims Act by the Federal Law № 5 of 12 February 2001. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 27 November 2002, as upheld on 20 January 2003, and remitted the matter for a fresh examination.
16.  On 7 August 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a new judgment, by which the applicant was awarded RUR 6,327.35 in future monthly payments and RUR 18,578.34 in respect of the preceding period. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 18 August 2003.
5.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1959 and 1967 respectively and live in Domžale.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 8 July 1970 and 11 March 1971 respectively, four plots of land were sold to the Municipality by H.O., the late wife of the first applicant J.O. and the mother of the second and third applicants, J.O. jr. and A.O.
8.  On 5 July 1973 and 4 June 1974, respectively, three plots of land were sold to the Municipality by the second applicant (J.O. jr.) and his brother (A.O.), the third applicant.
9.  On 23 November 1973 and 10 September 1976 two plots of land were sold to the Municipality by J.O.
10.  On 6 May 1992 the applicants lodged a request for the return of nine plots of land with the Domžale Administrative Unit on the basis of the 1991 Denationalisation Act, claiming that they had signed the contracts of sale under duress which was tantamount to expropriation.
11.  On 7 June 1993 the Administrative Unit transferred their request to the Domžale Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Domžalah) as the competent authority.
12.  On 13 July 1994 a hearing was held. The court requested the applicants to complete their request and submit further documents.
13.  On 28 September and 29 November 1994, 16 February 1995, 23 March, 23 May and 17 July 1995 the court sent a letter to the applicants' lawyer, reiterating its request. The court also informed the new lawyer representing the applicants that it had received no reply.
14.  On 18 September 1997 the court summoned the applicants to complete their request within 30 days, or else it would reject it or consider it withdrawn.
15.  On 3 November 1997 the applicants filed the requested document through their representative and enlarged their claim, directing it also against the Slovenian Compensation Corporation (the “SCC”). On 20 January 1998 the latter replied to the applicants.
16.  Further to their reply, on 10 December 1998, 11 February and 26 April 1999 the court requested the lawyer to submit further documents.
17.  On 14 May 1999 the applicants through their representative filed the requested documents which were forwarded to the SCC. The latter replied on 5 July 1999.
18.  On 7 February 2001 the applicants specified the amount of compensation claimed.
On 14 February 2001 a hearing was held. Since some of the requested documents were still missing, the applicants' representative obliged himself to reply to the SCC's statements.
19.  On 20 February 2001 the Municipality of Domžale filed a reply.
On 14 September 2001, further to the court's additional request, the applicants' representative filed submissions.
20.  On 13 December 2001, after a hearing, the Local Court rejected the claim.
21.  On 28 January 2001 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče).
22.  On 15 January 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected their appeal. On 6 February 2003 the decision was served on the applicants. That decision became final.
4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1998, 2000 and 2001 the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyi Town Court (hereinafter – the Town Court) against the Joint Stock Company “Electron-Gaz” (the “EG”) – in which the State held 99.9% of the share capital – to recover unpaid salary and compensation. By three judgments of 12 January 1999, 9 June 2000 and 21 February 2001 the court awarded the applicant the total of UAH 8,634.89[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 7 March 2003 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the EG, which are still pending.
7.  On 22 September 2003, in the course of bankruptcy proceedings against the EG and following Article 86 of the Code of Commercial Proceedings and Articles 14 and 15 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Restoration of a Debtor's Solvency or the Declaration of Bankruptcy”, the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region ordered the inclusion of the Town Court's awards given in the applicant's favour, as well as his additional claim for UAH 4,332.05[2], which the EG had recognised as salary arrears due him for 2000 - 2002, into the list of creditors' claims.
8.  On 17 May 2002 the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs' Service that the judgments in his favour were not executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was barred by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
9.  In August 2005 the judgments of 12 January 1999, 9 June 2000 and 21 February 2001 were fully enforced.
10.  On 7 April 2006 the applicant instituted one more set of proceedings against the same debtor (EG) in the Town Court, seeking, inter alia, compensation of UAH 4,332.05 recognized by the defendant as salary arrears due him for 2000 - 2002. On 5 June 2006 the court partly allowed his claim and ordered the defendant to pay him UAH 3,829.94[3] in salary arrears and UAH 500[4] in compensation of non-pecuniary damage. This decision was not appealed against and became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Taganrog.
5.  On 10 July 2000 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”, Таганрогский городской суд) granted the applicant's claim for recovery of 42,900 Russian roubles (“RUR”) which he had lent to a private company and awarded him the interest of RUR 50,543. The applicant's action in respect of the second defendant, a private person, was rejected.
6.  The judgment, in its part relating to the award of interests, was quashed by the Rostov Regional Court (“The Regional Court”, Ростовский областной суд) on appeal on 27 September 2000 and remitted at first instance.
7.  On 14 March 2001 the Town Court rendered a new judgment in the applicant's favour. The court decided that the private company was to pay the applicant RUR 86,937.60 in respect of the accrued interest. In addition the court ruled that the co-defendant, a private person, was to be held vicariously liable for the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of RUR 129,837.60.
8.  The judgment was not appealed against and on 25 March 2001 it came into force.
9.  On 6 June 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, acting upon the protest lodged by its President, quashed the judgments of 10 July 2000 and 14 March 2001 as well as the decision of 27 September 2000 and remitted the case at first instance. In particular, the court noted that the factual findings of the first-instance court had been erroneous and in breach of the relevant procedural rules.
10.  By judgment of 10 November 2002 the Town Court freshly examined the case and granted the applicant's claims in full. The court ruled that the private company was to pay the applicant RUR 42,900 in respect of the principal debt and RUR 86,937.60 in respect of the accrued interest. The court also decided that the co-defendant, the private person, was to be held vicariously liable for the entirety of the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of RUR 129,837.60.
11.  The judgment of 10 November 2002 was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court on appeal on 6 February 2003.
12.  It appears that the applicant was unsuccessful in a few sets of civil litigation against various third persons who had allegedly failed to re-pay their debts. He also tried unsuccessfully to prosecute these persons.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivskaya” Mining Company 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 «Новогродівська») - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her late husband.
6.  On 1 March 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded her UAH 2,290.80[1]. The decision was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції). However, the decision was not enforced, allegedly due to the failure of the Bailiffs' Office to act, in not selling the property of the Mining Company.
7.  In June 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court decision in her favour. On 26 June 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the decision of 1 March 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. Also on 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 2 September 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 12 November 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation against the decision of 26 June 2002 as submitted too late. On 24 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.
8.  The Government submitted that in October 2004 the debtor requested the Novogrodivskyy Town Court to review the judgment of 1 March 2002 in light of new circumstances. No further information was provided by the parties. In particular, the applicant stated that she was completely unaware of these proceedings.
9.  According to the applicant, by November 2004 she received UAH 2,014.80; the rest of the debt due to her remains unpaid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Narva.
5.  In 1983 the applicant married N. The marriage was dissolved on 7 February 1997.
6.  On 26 May 1997 N. lodged an action with the Narva City Court (linnakohus), requesting that the joint property, including an apartment, be divided.
7.  On 30 January 1998, the Narva City Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 12 February 1998. However, on 11 February 1998 the applicant requested that the hearing be postponed as his lawyer had to participate in a hearing of a criminal case at the same time. The City Court adjourned the hearing.
A new preliminary hearing was scheduled for 19 August 1998. On the same day, N. requested that the hearing be adjourned because of her lawyer's absence. She requested that the hearing be scheduled for a date after 10 September 1998.
The third preliminary hearing took place on 13 October 1999 and a trial hearing on 31 August 2000. On 11 September 2000 the court delivered the judgment by which the marital property was divided. According to the City Court, the apartment was in the ownership of an apartment cooperative (korteriühistu, kooperatiiv). The applicant and N. had possessed a share in the cooperative. The City Court considered the sum they had paid for the share as a part of the joint property.
8.  On 5 June 2001, after an appeal by N., the Viru Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) quashed the rulings of the City Court and referred the case back to it. The Court of Appeal noted, inter alia, that the actual market value of the apartment at the time of the division of the property (as opposed to the construction costs) had to be taken into account for the determination of the value of the property.
9.  A hearing before the Narva City Court, scheduled for 13 June 2002, was adjourned in order to enable the parties to adduce additional evidence. In September, the parties submitted additional pleadings.
On 10 October 2002 the Narva City Court, following a hearing, delivered the judgment. It found that the applicant and N. had not been the owners of the apartment during their marriage. They had owned a share in the apartment cooperative. The City Court decided that the share had to be divided between the applicant and N.
10.  N. lodged an appeal with the Viru Court of Appeal, which, on 28 January 2003, quashed the City Court's judgment. It found that the apartment had been acquired by the applicant and N. jointly during their marriage. According to an expert opinion the current value of the apartment was 119,337 kroons (EEK) (corresponding approximately to 7,700 euros (EUR)). Proceeding from the above, the Court of Appeal divided the property. According to the judgment, the applicant had to pay EEK 61,698.5 (approximately EUR 3,900) to N.
11.  On 16 April 2003 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
6.  On 28 November 1995, the applicant, who is a taxi driver by profession, was involved in a traffic accident.
7.  On 28 February 1996 the applicant was charged with causing the accident. On 2 September 1997 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment.
8.  The hearing set for 16 March 1998 was adjourned due to the presiding judge’s illness. On 11 July 2001 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held the first hearing in the case. The hearing set for 20 September 2001 was adjourned due to the witnesses’ absence.
9.  On 7 December 2001 the court ordered an expert opinion to be obtained. On 30 April 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. The court ordered a supplementary opinion to be obtained.
10.  The hearing set for 18 September 2002 was adjourned. At the hearing held on 7 November 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 6 June 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.
12.  Following the remittal, on 23 September 2004 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. The court sentenced the applicant to one year imprisonment stayed for two years. The applicant appealed.
13.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“2004 Act”). On 16 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision and confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. However, the court did not grant any compensation to the applicant.
14.  On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court held an appeal hearing and gave judgment. The judgment is final.
15.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant again filed a complaint with the Supreme Court under the 2004 Act alleging that a copy of the final judgment had not yet been served on him. The Supreme Court rejected the complaint, on a later unknown date, as the applicant had never asked to be served with a copy of the final judgment.
16.  On 21 February 2006 the applicant for the third time filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act. On 29 September 2006 the court refused to deal with the merits of the complaint. The court held that the proceedings had already been terminated and therefore the complaint was groundless.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tambov.
5.  He was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to certain social benefits.
6.  In 1998 the administration of Tambov placed the applicant on a special “waiting list” for getting free accommodation.
7.  As the town administration did not provide him with a flat within three months after placing him on a waiting list, the applicant brought a court action against the administration.
8.  By judgment of 2 March 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov ordered that:
 “...the Mayor of Tambov should allocate to the Administration of the Leninskiy District of Tambov well equipped dwelling premises having a living surface of no less than 27 square metres and comprising additional dwelling premises in the form of a separate room for the further allocation to Mr Makarov.
The head of the administration of the Leninskiy District of Tambov should provide Mr Makarov, whose family comprises three members, a well equipped flat having a living surface of no less than 27 square metres and comprising additional dwelling premises in the form of a separate room in the boundaries of Tambov”.
9.  No appeal was brought against the judgment and it entered into force on 13 March 1999.
10.  Enforcement proceedings were initiated by the bailiffs' service of the Leninskiy District of Tambov. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.
11.  On 12 March 2001, 31 March and 30 October 2003 the bailiffs' service fined the Mayor of Tambov for the failure to provide the applicant with accommodation. Those decisions were quashed by the Leninskiy District Court, upon the mayor's appeal. The District Court held that the Mayor of Tambov could not enforce the judgment due to the lack of available accommodation.
12.  Following those decisions the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant.
13.  On 22 January 2004 the writ of execution was again forwarded to the bailiffs' service and new enforcement proceedings were instituted.
14.  In December 2004 the town administration unsuccessfully applied to a court seeking to change the method of the enforcement of the judgment of 2 March 1999.
15.  On 24 January 2006 the bailiff fined the town administration for the failure to provide the applicant with a flat. The Leninskiy District Court of Tambov upheld the decision and confirmed that the town administration had taken no steps to enforce the judgment.
16.  The judgment of 2 March 1999 remains unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Tyumen Region.
5.  In 1999 he brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car.
6.  By judgment of 6 March 2001 the Armizonskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region awarded the applicant 38,368.92 Russian roubles (RUR) and recovered in his favour RUR 673 in compensation for court fee. The District Court specified that those amounts had to be paid by the Ministry of Finance at the expenses of the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Regional Court on 23 July 2001.
7.  On an unspecified date the President of the Tyumen Regional Court granted the Ministry of Finance's request to file a motion for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court.
8.  On 22 February 2002 the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of 6 March 2001.
9.  The judgment of 6 March 2001, as upheld on 23 July 2001, remains unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland.
5.  The investigation against the applicant started on 30 December 1992.
6.  On 31 August 1993 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person with the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She was indicted on a charge of fraud.
7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 18 May 1994. Subsequently the court held 5 hearings at intervals ranging from 1 to 9 months. They were adjourned due to the absence of the co-accused or her counsel.
8.  At a hearing on 14 January 1997 the court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.
9.  On 27 June 1997 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the District Court.
10.  The court held hearings on 25 March, 21 May, 19 June and 8 September 1998.
11.  On 11 September 1998 the court acquitted the applicant.
12.  On 12 November 1998 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor appealed against the first-instance judgment.
13.  At a hearing on 29 January 1999 before the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) the prosecutor withdrew his appeal. In consequence, the court decided not to examine it.